Yes, I do know that evolution doesn't literally say that there is no God. However, I have observed (as objectively as I can) that it is more a matter of context (based on deduction) that most Christians believe evolution is anti-God.
1) I understand that the Bible MUST be read in context, as everything else must be interpreted. Modern context example: A father says to his son in a playful manner, "I'm gonna kill you, you rascal!" Nobody would miss this context simply because it is a modern approach at humor.
2) Logically speaking, there is a disjucture that occurs in the idea of
a) A belief that there is a God- whose "powers" can manipulate (in fact, create) space, time, matter, non-contingient individualism, life, order, law, etc., and do so in standards-----
as opposed to the idea of
b) Darwinism which claims that nature (as in: all elements and compunds present, natural processes, manipulative sources[heat, mutation, natural selection, etc.]) has created humans (and all life on earth).
The idea that Darwinism is anti-God lies in the logic that, if there is a God who exists and is as perfect (a standard of behavior and existence unto himself that never changes: [reflexive property non-distributable]-- as in: by very nature unatainable by humans), and is a creator, and was/is without beginning or end, then the act of believing that He didn't create nature as it stated in the Bible would be (by deduction) calling God a liar. (since the Bible is considered having been directly inspired by God)
This reasoning works on several levels: the Bible says that God created us in His image (in His likeness, but with personal choice, -omnipotence, +limited physical manipulating capabilities, etc.). The Bible also says that God created all the creatures. It says that God created the earth and space (heavens).
**************************************************
AS FAR AS LITERAL BELIEF:
Of course, I don't believe that the earth is the literal center of the universe. However, if (like Biblically stated) that we are God's most loved creation, it may as well be the "center of the universe" as far as Christians are concerned.
I don't believe that the "apple" was nearly as important in the "fall of man" as the IDEA that Adam and Eve chose something OTHER than God. After all, God gave them the choice to choose something other than Him. He didn't force them. This is where the agape classification of love gets all of it's power from: you can't be FORCED into love. It is ALWAYS a choice.
Take the "if you have faith the size of a mustard seed you could say to that mountain 'move over there' and it would" scripture. Of course, ANYONE can move a mountain. Just drum up enough resources and capital, and give your investors a good reason. People move mountains literally everyday. I believe that the scripture meant to concentrate on how the "little" things can do (for a person) much, much, more than moving a mountain. However, as humans, the vast majority of us (belief in God not-withstanding) would rather move a mountain for profit than hug a drooling man in a nursing home. THAT takes faith.
##############################################
Back to evolution.............
I am a true believer in science as well. I believe in sound, logical reasoning, the scientific method, and scientific observation. But, I personally still do not take Darwinism at face-value. There ARE logical reasons for this:
1) If God exists, (based on His perceived being) it is entirely as possible for God to have created us as it is for evolution to have created us. I choose to believe that He exists.
2) Just as I cannot prove 100% that God exists, you cannot prove 100% that evolution is true. Evolution is a scientific theory. But it doesn't cover 100% of even evolutionists' questions. It simply doesn't answer all my questions. Microbiology (with emphasis on chemical structure rather than evolution specifically) answers more of them.
3) Just because there is an observation, doesn't necessarily mean the analysis of it is correct. Example: You observe that when you press the brake pedal, the car slows down. Analysis: Brakes slow cars down. One, this IS TRUE. Two, this IS FALSE. Now, before you go saying I contradict myself, please realize that I am speaking about different contexts. If your context uses the criteria that point A is where you start applying the brakes and point B is where you actually cease forward motion (with brakes constantly applied), then it is true for those criteria. However, if you are talking about a circuit or route where they MUST be applied (in certain places) to keep your vehicle under control by temporarily reducing your speed, it is FALSE. Why? Very simply: if you MUST apply the brakes, and the more efficiently they work, the faster your deceleration. If it only takes 5 seconds to decelerate and then get back to speed, as opposed to 7 seconds (because of your difference in braking), you have just deducted 2 seconds from your overall time, thus yielding a greater average speed. This is VERY counterintuative, but nonetheless true. Analysis: brakes speed you up. This type of counterintuitive truth can exist in many things. I believe that, the more complex the system being analysed, the more chance of counterintuative truths. Darwinism is very complex.
4) Evolution denies that the very thing that HAS been made (as in: life itself), could have been designed by a "creature" who already posesses it (life). I think that, at the very least, in order for science to be able to even be seen as credible in it's observation of "life", it must admit the possibility of an intelligent creator (an "always" life). After all, this is science. We must take into account all possibilities, and judge them under strict conditions without prejudice. I think dismissal of such a possibility is premature and pressured by the scientific community. (premature as in: it was dismissed, almost wholly, primarily when the Scopes trial was decided) I also believe that the POSSIBILITY of intelligent design should be made a valid scientific study in the theory of evolution.
Conclusion: I don't believe that evolution states literally that it is against God, but moreover, gives rise to a questionable faith perception (of God) based on a deductive - reasoning comparison of the perceived role of God.
I don't mean this sarcastically, but I think a rather good question to pose would be: "Did you know that there is nothing in Christianity that says science should be ignored?"...... well, speaking in context, that is : )
Peace and axle grease,
Jon
*****************************************************************
skeptic: I greatly appreciate your feedback. I realize that true science by definition doesn't deal with "supernatural" things. I know that "God" would be considered (also by definition) "supernatural" and "unquantifiable" or even "untestable". This would eliminate Him from the scientific equation. I guess ultimately, my opinion would like for science to simply recognize the possibility for something (God) that it cannot study.
Thanks again